EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Registration and Consultation

As far as I'm concerned professonal registration is a means of individuals having their achievements and commitment to their profession formally recognised and it's become a qualification in it's own right. Nowadays, for those more interested with doing a job, rather than just collecting paper and titular appreciation, it's also used a means to demonstrate on-going development i.e. CPD.

Professional registration, particularly now institutions accept a very broad range of members and registrants (albeit highly qualified, whether they be CEng, IEng or EngTech), is not necesarily an indicator of whether registrants are competent in specific roles e.g. Technologist in my opinion; unless it is used in conjunction with the the regulation process. I do see advertisements for jobs in the NHS that actually require IPEM registered Clinical Scientists but registration infers that they are fully trained and competent because of regulation, not in spite of it. I do not see a link at the moment between the IEE registration and the regulation of Technologists.

My thinking is that just because I'm registered as an Engineer doesn't necessarily mean I'm suitable or competent to carry out the specific job role I'm actually employed to do. All those posting here mustn't forget that we're not all managing departments - we need hands-on skills and background knowledge that's reflected in the qualifications. An IEE Registered Engineer may be too broad a qualification - fine for Engineering managers or TEchnicians employed in general Engineering but not necessarily a good indicator of specific knowledge or competence in Clinical TEchnology unless used in conjunction with regulation that sets standards for trianing, competences, etc. Registration as a professional in a regulated job-role should not be possible unless specific competences can be demonstrated. Regulation is the framework to ensure this in my opinion whether it is twisted by national and local agenda or not.

Dear Mr Ling,

I think you may be right, ie that competency and registration are separate. This is an important point. How should we assess competency? What does registration really mean? I feel these are important and interesting questions.

Having gone through both registration schemes C.Eng and Clinical Scientist – I felt they were remarkably similar.

I think it is of note that many EBME departments have invested in running ISO 9001 quality systems. Interestingly, competency assessment is an integral part of the ISO 9001 standard. Maybe the use of this standard would be a better way forward, as it is externally audited and has been widely accepted both commercially and in the NHS.

Regarding the IEE and registration of clinical technologists, this is just one of the stakeholder bodies. The IEE have been involved in many of the major standards regarding electro-medical equipment and I, personally, feel they may be able to contribute to this process. I feel that maintenance does relate for example to how equipment is designed. For example, there are many issues to do with self testing, user pre-use tests, the quality of manuals etc that I feel still need addressing. Maybe, device standards should incorporate more elements to do with maintenance and servicing etc. This is where I think the IEE can contribute.


Kevin

The point I'm making is that now C.S. role is regulated as a recognised profession you will have to go through the appropriate training route, knowledge and competancy based assessments or at least prove that you meet these requirements for C.S. registration. Not all IEE registered Engineers would be automatically eligible for C.S. registration so the link between registration as an Engineer and suitability for being a registered C.S. is tenuous I think.

The registration for CEng would not necessarily include the same criteria for inclusion as those for C.S. in terms of specialised knowledge required in a job role, employed as a C.S. The registration process is obviously similar but I suspect the requirements for registration are different. The point is that the necessary requirements to join a profession are what's regulated - registration should reflect that an individual meets these requirements and the employer, the state, sets the requirements and provides the framework for ensuring registrants meet them.

Different professions obviously place different requirements on professinals and a need to register with the professional body that actually regulates the profession. The IEE does not intend to regulate clinical technologists as far as I'm aware so what will registration with the IEE bring for Technologists regulated by the HPC?

R. J. Ling MIEE.

Dear Mr Ling

I agree again. CEng and Clinical Scientist are not the same and your point can also be made the other way not all registered Clinical Scientists will be able to be registered as a C.Eng..

I have not suggested that the IEE act as the regulation body for 'Clinical Technologists'.

I am unaware of any profession called 'clinical technologists' and I feel this proposed registration needs wider debate and consultation through the appropriate channels to determine exactly what is required and by whom i.e. with the DoH and the HPC - as discussed in my original post.

Best regards

Kevin

That's probably true up to a point Kevin; although it is more likely that C.S. registrants are in a better position to register for C.Eng registration since IPEM actively actively promote this for those C.S. employed in Clinical Engineering. The IEE neither promotes Engineers being registered as C.S. or gets involved directly in the regulation the C.S. profession as far as I'm aware (and I too receive the literature from the IEE).

Actually, as far as the promotion of registration for Technicains and regulation goes, I think it's only relatively recently that the IPEM and the IEE have been in a position to confer CEng, IEng and Eng Tech registration. Before then the majority of Technicians would not have been able to register with the IEE or IPEM as IEng or EngTech - except with the IIE. Should registration with the IIE not be more relevant to medical engineering since I guess there are lots of technicians in EBME registered with this institution?

We can discuss which registration and which institution is best until the cows come home but what's required is one of them to introduce a scheme such as the C.S. scheme where clincial engineering technicians (or technoclogists) have a professional stake in the system.

And I've not suggested they shouldn't, it's just a fact they have not publicised an intention to push for regulation and IPEM have; it seems IPEMs agenda is to push for this - the institute is concerned with Engineering in medicine when all's said and done. They have proposed that the HPC regulate the profession and IPEM will be involved in the process. I believe the group that are likely to be regulated will be called clinical technologists within which the HPC proposes we (employed as Technicians) will be part of.

I do agree with you that there needs to be further consultation on this issue and that we should not just let our employer and professional institutions forge ahead without involving the workforce in the debate.

For those who are worried about the academic requirements for registration and the fact that they do not seem to be taking practical experience in to account,here is a quote from the IPEM web site in the VRCT section:

"We require to develop processes to accredit prior experience and learning which will count towards the acquisition of a Clinical Technology degree.

"The education providers have indicated that it is entirely feasible to introduce such processes. Thus those wishing to join the profession who have HNC/HND or equivalent will be able to acquire a Clinical Technology degree in a reasonable time scale. This will be achieved through the accreditation of prior and experiential learning, and the acquisition of additional educational modules and workplace training.

"(Note: This means that we will continue to attract into the profession those holding HNC/HND/equivalent qualifications or specialist practical skills. It also ensures that, in the future, all entering the profession will be guaranteed structured, competence-based education and training which is independently assessed.)"

What I read from this is that it will be necessary to have a degree but the infrastructure to provide you with it, taking in to account previous knowledge and experience, needs to be put in place. They acknowledge it does not exists at present. They lso say that people without the required degree can still come in to the profession and be trained up.

Am I reading this right? You may want to read it in contxt with the rest of the article - see the IPEM web site front page news.
Robert

Sorry Robert, but I just can't resist chiming-in with my usual four points:-

1) We are not “clinical technologists”. We are engineering technicians.

2) At the end of the day the work still has to be done.

3) There will always be work for those willing to actually work.

4) Don't worry, be happy!

I think the argument about higher qualifications being necessary to meet the requirements for future regulation, for Technicians who're currently employed in EBME/Medical physics equipment maintenance specifically, is a red-herring and a bit of a waste of time. Membership of a professional institution is not even up for argument, really, since the IPEM is likely to be the institute that's involved with HPC regulation. Hence it's likely that if a post requires the incumbent to be registered then registration through IPEM will, most likely, be necessary.

Personally I don't think the academic standards of the VRCT (HNC) are particularly stringent considering the technical nature of the work we do so I wonder what the mean level of education and experience actually is out there. My opinion is that employers have been circumventing the requirements of Whitley for years, employing individuals in highly responsible grades, with a requirement for less experience and qualifications, because of high demand in certain locations (and job-roles) and this leaves the workforce in a difficult position nowadays.

Many of us realised a while back that if we met the requirements for the VRCT and regulation was going to be brought in for Technicians like it had for Scientists that it made sense to join the VRCT (for the sake of a tenner and sending of a CV and a covering letter). In any case, as many now realise, that regulation and these sort of things are usually pushed through by a minority, whether we like it or not, and seeing as we were told way back that being on the VRCT would make transferring onto the register easier then it made sense to others and myself; insurance if you like. Especially attractive if being involved in the regulation process meant retaining future job mobility, the possiblity of a proper career structure, training and CPD.

I wouldn't have thought anybody in the job, in the know so to speak, with a HNC/HND, is particularly bothered about meeting the future academic requirements for regulation since we are told, again and again, that there will be a grandfather clause for those already in-post. These individuals should still be able to meet the requirements of the VRCT if they have relevent experience working in healthcare. However I don't think the Grandfather clause can, should, or will necessarily be applied across the board for those in-post.

I think the argument, against regulation, the HPC, IPEM and VRCT, is predominantly from those that cannot meet the requirements of the VRCT - broady speaking from two groups: 1). those that just don't have the appropriate training and experience currently doing the job irrespective of the grade and academic qualifications they currently have and 2). those individuals that haven't joined the VRCT, or still can't join the VRCT, because their qualifications do not meet the basic requirements laid down by the VRCT.

Unfortunately for new starters I think that it always takes time to learn the relevent skills and pick up practical experience when moving into a new job, irrespective of prior, generic, engineering knowledge or practical skills. I'm not sure that a Grandfather clause should apply in this case since a paper qualification is not the issue here - skills and experience still need to be obtained before they are on-par with fully skilled individuals (whatever the level of academic qualification the skilled & experienced individuals have).

The other issue is about the relatively low-level of qualifications that employers have been willing to accept to fill posts on MTO3 and above, particularly, up until recently; that's down to individual employers circumventing Whitley agreements for years and compromising employees by failing to provide support for training/career progression. I think this had led to there being a significant number of us that have further qualifications rather than higher qualifications. In my opinion this is the issue that really needs to be addressed when considering transfer onto a state register - there should be a Grandfather clause that accepts individuals with the training, experience and skills in the job, irrespective of the level of qualification deemed acceptable in the past by employers.

If it's just about individuals that simply don't meet basic requirements or that can't be bothered with the application process just because they're in-post but wanting to transfer with individuals that do meet the requirements of the VRCT and that have applied then I don't think they should transfer - they should apply for registration when/if their employer deems it necessary.

The apparent lack of interest from employers and institutions in involving the whole of the workforce has not helped at all in publicising the issues around regulation. Personally I think, like most schemes thought up by this Government, that regulation will go ahead; so it's up to the employers, professional institutions and the Government to ensure that those in-post come regulation are not compromised. Individuals that do not meet any of the requirements of registration should be fully supported in achieving this aim or be registered under the Grandfather clause if the support is not there.

Unfortunately, speaking from personal and others' experiences, I think the divide in could actually be between Medical Physics and EBME; where the tendency in larger Medical Physics departments is to provide more formalised training and require slightly higher levels of qualifictions at the working grade i.e MTO3 (and be more aware of regualtion perhaps) and EBME where it seems, to me, that individuals can obtain higher grades irrespective of academic qualifications, training and experience; in comparison to those carrying out similar job roles in Medical Physics departments on lower grades.

I just wonder whether employers will insist on employing Clinical Technologists i.e. employing registered employees. If it's possible then I think they might start a two-tier system where some individuals carrying out certain roles in equipment maintenance are required to be state registered and others are not; in an attempt to save money on maintenance.

Let's get this thread back into play, especially as many of the posts are well-reasoned and worth reviewing. Who knows, perhaps we'll even get an update!

I have a question about the VRCT, in connection with IPEM and the title of C.S.

If the IET (as is now) are part of the consortium along with IPEM who are administrating the VRCT, why do they not just do away with the VRCT and call it the EngTech level of entry!

As someone who work in a company, feels that regulation is a good thing, and actually aspires to one day gain Ieng status,
Is it not that, the word Clinical should be replaced with Medical.
To read IPEMs summary of what is required to gain Ceng you would have needed to work with every piece of equipment in the hospital!
I feel that the IET and the guidelines set down by UK-SPEC are not as tight as those set down by IPEM.